COMPOSITIO MATHEMATICA

Transcription

1 COMPOSITIO MATHEMATICA MARC LEVINE The stability of certain classes of uni-ruled varieties Compositio Mathematica, tome 52, n o 1 (1984), p < 52_1_3_0> Foundation Compositio Mathematica, 1984, tous droits réservés. L accès aux archives de la revue «Compositio Mathematica» (http: // implique l accord avec les conditions générales d utilisation ( Toute utilisation commerciale ou impression systématique est constitutive d une infraction pénale. Toute copie ou impression de ce fichier doit contenir la présente mention de copyright. Article numérisé dans le cadre du programme Numérisation de documents anciens mathématiques

2 Compositio Mathematica 52 (1984) Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague. Printed in The Netherlands THE STABILITY OF CERTAIN CLASSES OF UNI-RULED VARIETIES Marc Levine Introduction The first results on the deformations of ruled varieties were obtained by Kodaira and Spencer [8], where they show that all small deformations of a ruled surface are also ruled. Their argument uses the Castelnuovo-Enriques criterion for ruledness in an essential way, and thus, in view of the absence of a similar criterion for varieties of higher dimension, their method cannot be applied to the study of the deformations of a general ruled variety. In fact, our paper [9] shows that the straightforward generalization of the Kodaira-Spencer theorem is false, in that there is a ruled threefold that can be deformed into a threefold that is not ruled. Here we will study the deformations of ruled varieties, and other related varieties, and we will give some natural conditions which allow one to recover the stability results. Section 1 is concerned with a technique of an approximate resolution of singularities in a family of varieties. In Section 2, we define the various classes of varieties that we will study, and we prove our main results in Section 3 (see especially Theorem 3.11). We should mention that the smooth deformations of uni-ruled varieties have been studied by ourselves in [10] and in a work of Fujiki [4]. Both of these papers use somewhat different techniques from those employed in this work; the main result in both papers is that all smooth deformations of a uni-ruled variety are uni-ruled in characteristic zero. In characteristic p > 0 a similar result holds after imposing a separability hypothesis. If X and Y are cycles, intersecting properly on a smooth variety U, we let X Y denote the cycle intersection; if X and Y intersect in a zero cycle, we denote the degree of X Y by I(X Y; U). Subvarieties of U will be identified with cycles, without additional notation, as the context requires ; if Z is a subscheme of U, we let Z denote the associated cycle. We fix an algebraically closed base field k and a discrete valuation ring 0 with residue field k and quotient field K. Unless otherwise specified, all schemes, morphisms, and rational maps will be over k. If X and Y are 3

3 4 schemes, with morphism f: X ~ Y, we call X a fiber variety over Y if X is of finite type over Y, and f is faithfully flat with connected and reduced fibers. If f : V ~ M is a flat, projective morphism, we denote the Hilbert scheme of V over M by Hilb( /M), the universal bundle of subschemes of V, flat over M, by h : H(V/M) ~ Hilb(V/M), and the Hilbert point of a subscheme X of V by h(x). This paper is a modification of the author s Brandeis doctoral thesis. 1 am greatly indebted to my thesis advisor, Teruhisa Matsusaka, for his guidance and encouragement. l. Résolution of singularities in a family In this section we consider the following problem: suppose we are given a smooth projective fiber variety p : V ~ Spec«9) over a DVR (9, and a rational map ç from the closed fiber ho to a variety Y. How can we resolve the indeterminacy of (p by replacing V with a birationally equivalent family p* : V* ~ Spec(O), and keep the new family as smooth as possible? We will use without comment the elementary properties of monoidal transformations; for definitions and proofs of these basic results we refer the reader to [5]. If X is a noetherian scheme and W a closed subscheme, we let denote the monoidal transformation with center W. Let Y be a closed subscheme of X. We define SingX(Y) to be the closed subset of Y, is not smooth on X, or y is not smooth on Y Let p : X ~ Spec(O) be an 0-scheme with closed subscheme Y. We define Sing( Y ) to be the closed subset of Y, U { y X 0 k and Y do not intersect properly at y ). In general, if u : Y - X is a birational morphism of smooth varieties, then the exceptional locus of u is a pure codimension one subset of Y. If this exceptional locus has irreducible components E,,...,E,, we call the divisor E 03A3s1Ei the exceptional divisor of u. The following result is an easy consequence of the basic properties of monoidal transformations, and we leave its proof to the reader.

4 5 LEMMA 1.1: Let p : X ~ Spec(O) be a ( quasi-) projective fiber variety over Spec(O) and let W be a reduced closed subscheme of X. Let X X - Sing(W), W W - Sing(W) and let u: XW ~ X, u : X W ~ X be the respective monoidal transformation. Then (i) p 03BF u: XW ~ Spec(O) is a (quasi-)projective fiber variety over Spec(O). Suppose further that p : X ~ Spec(O) is a smooth quasi-projective fiber variety with geometrically irreducible fibers and that X ~ k is not contained in Sing(W). Then (ii) p 03BF u : X W ~ Spec(O) is a smooth quasi-projective morphism with geometrically irreducible fibers (iii) X W is an open subscheme of XW (iv) X W ~ K ~ X ~ K and X W ~ k ~ X ~ k are birational morphisms. (v) Let é be the exceptional divisor of u, and E the exceptional divisor of u ~ k. Then DEFINITION 1.2: Let p : V ~ Spec«9) be a smooth projective fiber variety of fiber dimension n. Suppose there is a smooth complete variety S and a dominant rational map ~: V 0 k - S. A good resolution of the singularities of ~ for the family V is a pair ( u: V ~ V, U ) where u: V - V is a projective birational morphism, V is irreducible, and U is an open subscheme of V satisfying (i) p 03BF M: U ~ Spec«9) is a smooth quasi-projective morphism with geometrically irreducible fibers; (ii) the morphism u 0 k: U 0 k ~ V ~ k is birational. (iii) Let U 0 k denote the closure of U 0 k in V. Then U 0 k is smooth and the induced rational map ~ : U 0 k - S, ~ ~ 03BF (u 0 k ), is a morphism. Furthermore (iv) Let 03B5 ~ U be the exceptional divisor of the morphism Write é as a sum of irreducible divisors u : U ~ V. and denote the divisor di 0 k by. If E is an irreducible component of 03B5~ U 0 k, then we can write the divisor 1 - E as for suitable integers n,.

5 6 We note that condition (iv) is trivially satisfied if all the 03B5l0 are irreducible; in general, (iv) states that the subgroup of the group of divisors on U 0 k generated by the ( is the same as the subgroup generated by their irreducible components. We also note that (iv) refers to divisors on U 0 k, not divisors modulo linear equivalence. EXAMPLE: Let V P2 X Spec(O). Blow up V 0 k at a point p, and then blow up this surface at a point q lying on the exceptional curve. Let S be the resulting surface, let v: S ~ V~k be the blowing up morphism and let E El + E2 (Ei-irreducible) be the exceptional divisor of v, where E2 is the exceptional divisor of the blowup at q. Let ~: V ~ k ~ S be the inverse to v. Now let Cl 9 V be the image of a section sl : Spec(O) ~ V that passes through p, and let ul : Vi - V be the blow up of V along CB. We identify V, 0 k with the blow up of V 0 k at p. Let C2 ç hl be the image of a section S2: Spec(O) ~ V1 that passes through q, but is not contained in the exceptional divisor of ul. Let u2: h2 ~ V1 be the blow up of V, along C2 and let u: V2 - V be the composition UI 0 u2. Then ( u: V2 - V, h2 ) is a good resolution of the singularities of 0 for the family V. In fact (i)-(iii) are obvious since V2 is smooth over O and since V2 0 k is isomorphic to S. To check (iv), we note that the exceptional divisor é of u : V2 ~ V consists of two irreducible components é, and 03B52, where 03B52 u-12(c2) and éi is the proper transform u-12[u-11(c1)]. We have CI ~ k El + E2 and C2 ~ k E2, so (iv) is satisfied. Our main object is to show that a good resolution exists for each family and each rational map. Our procedure will be inductive; to help the induction along we require a slightly different notion: that of the replica of a birational morphism. DEFINITION 1.3: Let p: V ~ Spec(O) be a smooth quasi-projective morphism with geometrically irreducible fibers. Let X and X be smooth varieties and let g: X ~ X be a projective birational morphism. Suppose we have a birational morphism f : V 0 k ~ X with A replica of g for the family V is a pair ( u: V - V, U ) where u: V - V is a projective birational morphism, and U is open subscheme of V satisfying (i) p p 03BF u: U ~ Spec«9) is a smooth quasi-projective morphism with geometrically irreducible fibers, (ii) the morphism p 0 k: U ~ k ~ V 0 k is birational, (iii) the induced rational map

6 7 is a morphism and (iv) Let dbe the exceptional divisor of u: U ~ V. Write é as a sum of irreducible divisors and let 03B5l0 denote the divisor 0 k. If E is an irreducible component of do k, then we can write the divisor 1 - E as for suitable integers ni. LEMMA 1.4 ( Severi s method of the projecting cone): Let X be a smooth quasi-projective variety contained in a projective space p N. Let Z, B1,..., Bs be subvarieties of X. Then there is a subvariety Y of PN such that (i) e and X intersect properly in (FD N. (ii) e. X Z + 03A3ri1 Zi as a cycle, with Z 1 Zl for all i 1,..., r and Z, 4 Z. for all i 1 j; i, j 1,..., r. (iii) Z, ~ Bj is of codimension at least one on both Bj and Z, for all i 1,..., r; j 1,..., s. PROOF (see [3], [12], or [13]): In each of these works, eis the cone over Z with vertex a suitably general linear subvariety of (FD N. The next lemma provides the key step in the inductive argument. LEMMA 1.5 : Suppose a is equi-characteristic. Let p: V ~ Spec(O) be a smooth quasi-projective morphism with geometrically irreducible fibers. Let X be a smooth variety, C a smooth subvariety of X of codimension at least two, uc: XC ~ X the monoidal transformation with center C; let Bl,...,B, be irreducible subvarieties of Xc and let BI denote the image uc(bi) in X. Suppose there is a birational morphism f : V ~ k - X. Letting P X - f(v 0 k) and X X - P, we further suppose that (a) codimx(p) 2, (b) C rl X and B; n X, i 1,..., s, are nonempty, ( c) f-1 is a morphism in a neighborhood of C ~ X and B; ~ X, i 1,...,s.

7 8 Then there is an open subset U of V, and a subvariety W of V such that (A) (uw: VW ~ V, Uw) is a replica of Uc for the family V, where W Wn U. ( B) Letting fw: UW ~ k-- Xc be the induced morphism, and letting P, Xc - fw (Uw 0 k) and X0C Xc - P,, then B, n X0C is nonempty for i 1,..., s, and f-1w is an isomorphism in a neighborhood of B, n X0C. (C) W is smooth over Spec«9). PROOF : We first note that we may replace V ~ k with V ~ k - f-1(p), and V with V - f - 1 (P). Having done so, and changing notation, we may assume that f(v~k) is contained in X. We may also assume X X0. Noting that f -1 is an isomorphism in a neighborhood of C and the B l, we let Û f- (C), BI f- (B ). We may assume that V is a Spec(O) subscheme of PNk X k Spec«9). By Lemma 1.4, there is a subvariety Z of PNk such that (1) Z n V 0 k is proper; (2) DI 1 Dj for i 1 j and DI 1 Û for all i, (3) D, n B, is of codimension at least one on both D, and Ê,, for all i 1,...,r and j 1,...,s. Let W be the closed subscheme (Z X Spec( tp )) n V of V and let T be the closed subset of V Note that (b) and (c), together with statements (1)-(3) imply that (4) codimv(t ~ k) 2; neither C nor any B is contained in f(t ~ k ). Let U be the open subscheme V - T of V. Let C and BJ denote the intersection of U with Û and El respectively. Then from (1)-(3) it follows that (5) W ~ U ~ k is proper; W (U~k)C; BJ ~(U~k) ~ Ø. If W is reducible, replace W with an irreducible component W0 such that W0 ~(U~k) C; changing notation, we may assume that W is irreducible. Let W U ~ W and let uw : Uw- U, uw: VW ~ V be the respective monoidal transformations. We claim that (uw: VW ~ V, UW) is a replica of uc, Conditions (i) and (ii) of Definition 1.3 are immediate from our construction. For condition (iii) we note the following diagram of rational maps

8 9 where fw is defined to make the diagram commute. Since f - 1 is an isomorphism in a neighborhood of C ~ X0 and since it follows that uw ~ k: U w 0 k ~ U 0 k is the monoidal transformation be the closed we see that with center C, and fw is a birational morphism. Let Pc subset XC-fW(UW~k) of Xc. By (6), Suppose there was an irreducible component A of Pc on XC. Then of codimension one and as codimx(p ~ f(t)) 2, it follows that and hence But by (b), (c), and (4), P ~ f(t) does not contain C. Thus codim Xc [uc 1(C ~ ( P U f ( T )))] is at least two, and no such A could exist. This completes the verification of (iii) in Definition 1.3. We now check (iv). As W is smooth and irreducible, the exceptional divisor éof u w is the irreducible subvariety u-1w(w) taken with multiplicity one. From the diagram (6), we have As the right hand side is irreducible, property (iv) is clear and the proof of (A) is complete. (B) follows easily from (5) and diagram (6); to show (C), we note that W is flat over Spec(O) since W 0 K and W 0 k have the same dimension. As both W 0 K and W 0 k are smooth, W is smooth over Spec(O) by [6, exp. II, thm. 2.1]. This completes the proof of the lemma. Q.E.D. PROPOSITION 1.6 : Assume (9 is equi-characteristic. Let p : V - Spec«9) be a smooth quasi-projective morphism with geometrically irreducible fibers. Let X be a smooth variety and let

9 10 be a sequence of monoidal transformations with smooth center C1 c X,. Let C/ denote the image of C1 in Xo for i 0,..., n - 1 and let v: Xn - X denote the composition v Vo vn-1. Suppose there is a birational morphism f : V 0 k - X. Letting P X - f(v), X X - P, we further suppose that (a) codimx(p) 2; (b) CI ~ X is non-empty, for i 0,..., n - 1; (c) f-1 is an isomorphism in a neighborhood of Ci ~ X, for i 0,..., n - 1. Then there is a sequence of monoidal transformations with irreducible center W ~ Vi, and open subsets U of V, such that Ui and U n W are smooth over Spec(O), ui(u,,j) is contained in U, and is a replica of v for the family V, where u is the composition, u U0 03BF... 03BF Un -1. PROOF: We proceed by induction on n, the case n 0 being trivial. Let C," denote the image of C, in Xl, for i 1. By Lemma 1.5, there is a subvariety Wo of V, and an open subscheme Uo of V, such that, (1) (uw0: V1 ~ V; Ul ) is a replica of v0: X1 ~ X for V, where V, hwo, U1 (U0)(W0 ~ U0). (2) Let f1: U, 0 k - Xl be the morphism, f VOl 0 f 03BF (uw0 o k ), let Pl X1 - f1(u1 0 k ), and let X10 Xl - Pl. Then X ~ C"i ~ Ø and f-1 1 is an isomorphism in a neighborhood of X10 ~ C,", for each i1,...,n-1. (3) Wo n Uo is smooth over 0. From (1) and (2), we see that the family p1: U, - Spec«9), p P 0 u Wo, the sequence of monoidal transformations and the birational morphism satisfy the hypotheses of the proposition. Let vl be the composition v1 v1 03BF... 03BF vn, By induction, there is a sequence of monoidal transformations

10 with irreducible center W1 c V1l, and open subsets U 1 of Vl1 such that Ul1 and Ul1 ~ W are smooth over Spec(O), and 11 is replica of v for the family UI. Define (9-varieties I ;, i 1,...,n, and subvarieties Wl, i 1,..., n - 1, of lg inductively by letting W, be the closure of W,1 in V, and letting Vl+1 be the monoidal transform of V, with center W,. Clearly V1l is a subscheme of V,; let U be the open subscheme Ul1 of lg, and let u : Vn ~ V be the composition of the monoidal transformations We claim that ( u: Vn ~ V; Un) is a replica of v for the family V. Indeed, properties (i)-(iii) of Definition 1.3 follow immediately from the fact that (u1 : V,, - Ul ; Un) and (uw0: V1 ~ V; U1) are replicas f or vl and vo respectively. It remains to check condition (iv). Let é be the exceptional divisor of u: Un ~ V, and write éas a sum of irreducible divisors Let é" be the exceptional divisor of ul : l - Ul. of u, From the factorization we see that we may take one of the irreducible components of 03B5, say é,, to be the proper transform of u-1w0(w0) under (u1)-1. In addition, write tff as W0 we can Furthermore, since U and U ~ Wi are smooth over Spec«9), the exceptional locus of u1 ~ k: Un ~ k ~ U1 ~ k is 03B51 ~ (Un~k), as one sees by an easy induction. Let E be an irreducible component of do k. If E is an exceptional subvariety for u ~ k, then E is a component of é" 0 k. As (u : v:,1 ~ Ul; Un ) is a replica of vl, we can write 1 - E as a sum

11 12 for suitable integers n,. In case u k does not collapse E, we must have Thus each irreducible component of 1. E - tffr 0 k is exceptional for ui 0 k, and we are reduced to the preceeding case. This completes the verification of (iv), and the proof of the proposition. Q.E.D. We now prove the main result of this section. THEOREM 1.7 : Let p : V ~ Spec«(9) be a smooth projective fiber variety of fiber dimension n. Suppose (9 is equi-characteristic and that either char(o) > 5 and n 3, or char(o) 0. Suppose there is a smooth complete variety S and a dominant rational map 0: V ~ k -S. Then there is a good resolution of the singularities of ~ for the family V. PROOF : By [2] in case char(o) > 5 and n 3, or by [7] in case char(o) 0, there is a birational morphism v: X ~ V 0 k that can be factored into a sequence of monoidal transformations with smooth center, such that the induced rational map : X - S is a morphism. Let (u,: VI ~ V, U1) be a replica of v for the family V. Let U, 0 k be the closure of U, 0 k in V1, and let be the induced rational map ~1 ~ 03BF v-1 03BF (u1 ~ k ). U, and U, ~ k are smooth and ~1: U, ~ k ~ S is a morphism. Applying [2] or [7] again, there is a projective birational morphism U2: V ~ V1 that resolves the singularities of the variety U1 0 k and the indeterminacy of the map ~1. In addition, u2 1 is an isomorphism when restricted to Ul. Let U u-12(u1), and let u : V ~ V be the composition u Ul 0 u2. We claim that ( u : V ~ V, U ) is a good resolution of the singularities of ~ for the family V. Let ~ : U 0 k - S be the induced morphism ~ ~1 03BF ( u2 ~ k). Let f 1: U, ~ k - X be the birational morphism, f, v-1 03BF (ul 0 k ). Let F c X be the closure of the fundamental locus of f-11. Then But codim X(X-f1(U1 ~ k)) is at least two, since ( u 1: replica of v. Also codimx(f) is at least two. Thus hl - V; U1) is a This verifies condition (iii) in definition 1.2. Conditions (i), (ii), and (iv)

12 13 follow from the isomorphism u2: U ~ U, and the fact that ( ul : V1 - V, Ul ) is a replica of v. Q.E.D. 2. Ruled, quasi-ruled, and strongly uni-ruled varieties In this section we define our notion of stability, we introduce the classes of varieties which are natural higher dimensional generalizations of the class of ruled surfaces, and we verify the easy half of a criterion for stability of these classes. DEFINITION 2.1: Let X be a variety of dimension n, and let Y be a variety of dimension n - 1. (i) X is said to be ruled over Y if X is birationally isomorphic to Y P1. The induced rational map ~: X ~ Y is called a ruling of X. (ii) X is said to be quasi-ruled over Y if there is a dominant separable rational map ~: X ~ Y such that ~-1(y) is an irreducible rational curve for all y in a Zariski open subset of Y. (iii) X is called uni-ruled if there is a ruled variety W of dimension n, and a dominant rational map 0: W ~ X. (iv) X is called strongly uni-ruled if there is a variety W, birationally isomorphic to X, a variety Z of dimension n - 1, and a subvariety Y of Z X W such that (a) pi : LT- Z is smooth and proper, (b) p-11(z) is a rational curve for all z in Z, (c) p2: Y ~ W is etale. The notions of ruledness, quasi-ruledness, uni-ruledness and strong uniruledness are birational in nature. Before discussing these varieties further, we will prove a lemma that will aid in their description. LEMMA 2.2: Let ~: X ~ Y be a dominant rational map of varieties with X, Y, and ~ defined over a field k. Let y be a generic point of Y over k. Suppose that ~-1(y) is a complete non-singular rational curve, say Cy. I f there is a divisor D ç X such that Cy rl D is contained in the smooth locus of X and deg(cy D ) 1, then X is ruled over Y via ~. PROOF: Let K ~ k be a field of definition for D and let y be a generic point of Y over K. By our assumptions, Cy, ~-1(y ) is defined over the field K( y ). Let x be a generic point of Cy over K( y ), hence x is also a generic point of X over K. The divisor d D - Cy, is rational over K( y ), hence by Riemann-Roch, there is a function tl E K(y )(x) such that

13 14 Thus xo is a K( y ) rational point of Cy.. Again by Riemann-Roch, there is a function t ~ K(y )(x) with Thus t: Cy, ~ P1 is an isomorphism and hence which proves the lemma. Q.E.D. REMARK: Suppose X is a variety defined over k. If char(k) 0, or if char( k ) > 5 and dim(x) 3, then (i) if tp: X - Y is a quasi-ruling then ~ is a ruling if and only if admits a rational section s: Y ~ X. This follows from the lemma once we replace X with a smooth projective variety X*, birationally isomorphic to X, such that the induced rational map ~*: X* - Y is a morphism; (ii) if X is a ruled variety when X is a quasi-ruled variety; (iii) if X is a quasi-ruled variety, then X is a strongly uni-ruled variety, for suppose X is quasi-ruled over Y via ~: X ~ Y. As above there is a smooth projective X* birationally ismorphic to X such that the induced rational map ~* : X* ~ Y is a morphism. If Yo is an open subset of Y such that ~* is smooth over Yo, then the graph of ~*, restricted to X*, Yo, exhibits X as a strongly uni-ruled variety. (iv) If X is a strongly uni-ruled variety then X is a uni-ruled variety, for suppose X is strongly uni-ruled via a family e of curves on W parametrized by Z, where W is a variety birationally isomorphic to X. Let pl : Y ~ Z, p2 : it- W be the restrictions to LT of the projections on the first and second factor, respectively. Let q : Z - Z be a quasi-finite morphism such that the pullback Y, admits a rational section to the morphism p,,: Y ~ Z. By (i) e is ruled over Z, furthermore the morphism P2 p: Y ~ W exhibits W, and hence X, as a uni-ruled variety. (v) Suppose that X is a projective variety defined over k, and let x be a generic point of X over k. Then X is uni-ruled if and only if there is a rational curve on X containing x. See Lemma 2 of [10] for proof. The celebrated example of the cubic threefold was shown by Clemens-Griffiths to be uni-rational but not rational; one easily deduces

14 15 from this that the cubic threefold is not ruled. It is quasi-ruled (in fact a conic bundle) by the conics cut out by the p2 of planes passing through a line contained in the threefold, which gives an example of a quasi-ruled variety that is not ruled. More generally, it is easy to show that any non-trivial conic bundle over a base S, where S is not uni-ruled, is quasi-ruled but not ruled. See the discussion following Theorem 3.4 for an example of a strongly uni-ruled variety that is not quasi-ruled. We do not know of an example of a uni-ruled variety that is not strongly uni-ruled. It is not difficult, however, to construct a family of rational curves on a variety V which exhibit V as a uni-ruled variety, but not as a strongly uni-ruled variety. For example, if x is a general point of a general quartic threefold V, then the intersection of V, the tangent hyperplane to V at x, and the tangent cone to V at x gives a degree eight rational curve Cx with an eight-tuple point at x. If S is a general surface section of V, then the curves Cx, as x runs over S, gives a uni-ruling of V. This is not a strong uni-ruling, since in a strong uni-ruling the k-closure of the singular points of the generic curve in the uni-ruling must have codimension at least two in the ambient variety. DEFINITION 2.3: Let 9 be a class of nonsingular projective varieties. We say that P is stable under small deformations (in the algebraic sense) if, given a variety Xo in P and smooth projective fiber variety over a variety M, with then there is a Zariski neighborhood U of m o in M such that the variety p-1(m) is in P for all m in U. LEMMA 2.4: Let -9 be a class of smooth projective varieties such that (i) If p: X - M is a smooth projective fiber variety over a variety M, and if X 0 k(m) is in P, then there is an open subset U of M such that p-1(u) is in Yfor all u in U; (ii) if p: X - Spec(D) is a smooth projective fiber variety over an equicharacteristic DVR-Q, with quotient field L and algebraically closed residue field Ko, and if X 0 Ko is in.9, then X 0 L is in.9. Then.9 is stable under small deformations. PROOF: This follows by a simple noetherian induction. LEMMA 2.5: Let p: X - M be a proper fiber variety over a variety M. Suppose there is a variety YM, defined and proper over k(m), and a

15 16 dominant rational (resp. birational) map 03C8M: X 0 k (M) - Ym, also defined over k(m). Then there is an open subset U of M, a flat and proper morphism q: Y - U and a subvariety F of p-1(u) X u Y such that (i ) Y 0 k(u) is k(u) k(m) isomorphic to Ym; r 0 k(u) is the graph of 03C8M; (ii) Y 0 k(u) is reduced and geometrically irreducible for each u in U; (iii) r 0 k(u) is the graph of a dominant rational ( resp. birational) map 03C8u: X 0 k(u) - Y 0 k(u), for each u in U. PROOF : Ym defines by specialization a proper fiber-variety YM over an open subset U, of M. Let U2 be an open subset of Ml over which YM is flat, and such that YM 0 k(u) is reduced and geometrically irreducible for each u of Ul. Let f M denote the graph of 41m, and let f M denote the k-closure of rm in X X M YM. As 0393M is k(m)-closed, Irm 0 k(m) 0393M. If 03C8M is a birational map, we take U to be an open subset of U2 such that f M is flat over U, r M 0 k(u) is reduced and geometrically irreducible for each u of U, and such that for each u in U. If 03C8M is merely a dominant rational map, be an open subset as above, only we require that we take U to and that p2 : 0393M ~ k(u) ~ YM ~ k(u) is dominant for each in U. Letting completes the proof. Q.E.D. PROPOSITION 2.6: Let f!jj 1 be the class of strongly uni-ruled varieties, f!jj 2 the class of quasi-ruled varieties, and.93 the class of ruled varieties. Then P1, P2, and f!jj 3 satisfy condition (i) of Lemma 2.4. PROOF: Let p : X ~ M be a smooth projective fiber variety over a variety M. Let XM denote the generic fiber X ~ k ( M ) (1) Suppose XM is strongly uni-ruled. Then there is a variety WM, a variety Zm and a subvariety Y M of Zm X WM satisfying conditions (a)-(c) of Definition 2.1 (iv). We may assume that WM, Zm and em are defined over a finite field extension L of k(m), and that XM 0 L and WM are birational over L. Replacing M with its normalization in L, and changing notation, we may assume that L k ( M ). Let WM and Zm be varieties proper over k(m), containing WM and Zm respectively, as k(m)-open subsets. By Lemma 2.5, there is an open subset U of M, and proper morphisms q: Z ~ U, r: W - U such that (i) (ii) Z 0 k (u) and W ~ k(u) are reduced and geometrically irreducible for each u in U; (üi) W ~ k(u) is birational to X ~ K(u) for each u in U.

16 17 Let Y be the k-closure of em in Z x u W. As YM is smooth and proper over ZM, and etale over WM, there is an open subset Z of Z such that (iv) (a) p1(z) is smooth and proper over Z; (b) By Lemma 5 of [13], is etale over W we have (v) p-11(z) is a rational curve, for each z in Z. Let As smooth, proper, and etale morphisms are stable under base change, we have (vi) (a) Y ~ k(u) is smooth and proper over Z ~ k ( u ); (b) eo k(u) is etale over W ~ k(u). By (iii), (v), and (vi), X 0 k(u) is strongly uni-ruled. (2) Suppose XM is quasi ruled via ~M: XM ~ YM. Arguing as in (1), we may assume that YM and CPM are defined over k(m), and that YM is proper over k ( M ). Apply Lemma 2.5 to YM and ~M, and let p : Y - U, 0393 ~ p-1(u) U Y be as given by that lemma. By assumption, the generic fiber of om is an irreducible rational curve, and om is separable. In particular, there is an open subset of XM that is smooth over Yl,,l; thus there is an open subset ro of r, smooth over Y. Shrinking U if necessary, we may assume that the rational map ou: X ~ k(u) ~ Y ~ k(u) defined by the graph r 0 k(u) is separable, and that the generic fiber of ~u is irreducible. By Lemma 5 of [13], the generic fiber of ou is a rational curve, hence X ~ k(u) is quasi-ruled for each u in U. (3) If XM is a ruled variety, then our result follows from Theorem 1.1 of [11]. Q.E.D. A similar result also holds for the class of uni-ruled varieties. As the uni-ruled varieties (in characteristic zero) have been shown to be stable under smooth deformation (see [4] and [10]), we omit the proof. 3. Stability In this section we will prove our main results on the stability of ruled, quasi-ruled and strongly uni-ruled varieties. We first prove a result about the deformations of rational curves. DEFINITION 3.1: Let p : V - M be a flat projective morphism of schemes. Let O be a point of U, and let Z be a subscheme of p-1(0). A locally closed irreducible subset Y of Hilb( /M) is called a maximal algebraic family of deformations of Z in V if (i) h(z) ~ Y; (ii) if T - M is an M-scheme, OT a point of T over O, Z ~ T M V a subscheme flat over T such that k(ot) ~ Y Z, and f : T ~ Hilb( /M) the morphism induced by e, then there is an open neighborhood U of OT in T such that f(u) is contained in Y.

17 18 PROPOSITION 3.2 : Let p : V ~ Spec(C) be a projective morphism and let U be an open subset of V, smooth over a with geometrically irreducible fibers of dimension n. Suppose U 0 k contains a complete smooth rational curve X with Then there is a subvariety Y of Hilb(V/O) such that, letting y be the pullback Y hilb H(V/O). we have (i) Y is a maximal algebraic family of deformations of X in V; (ii) the morphism g: Y ~ Spec(C) induced by the inclusion of Y into Hilb(V/O) is smooth, and the fibers of g have dimension n - 1. (iii) OY is a subscheme of Y X Spec(O) U; (iv) y is smooth and proper over Y and etale over U; ( v) each fiber of pl : y ~ Y is a rational curve. In particular, U 0 k, and U 0 K are strongly uni-ruled. PROOF : Let Y be an irreducible component of Hilb(V/O) containing h (X). Since and since U is smooth over Spec(O), we have (a) Y is the only component of Hilb(V/O) passing through h ( X) ; (b) h(x) is smooth on Y ; (c) Th(x)(Y ) is isomorphic to HO(X, Nx/u), by corollary 5.2, exp. III of [6]. We now give a description of the isomorphism in (c). Let OY c Y X Spec(O)V be the subscheme induced by the inclusion of Y in Hilb(V/O). Denoting h( X) by 0, we note that fv OY 0 k (o) is isomorphic to X, hence is a smooth variety. As Cf!! is flat over Y, this implies that there is a neighborhood of fv in y, smooth over Y. In particular, the normal sheaf of fv in OY is the trivial sheaf, Thus, if v is a tangent vector, v E T0(Y ), there is a unique section Sv in H0(y 0; Ny 0/y ) such that, for each x in y 0, where dp1(x): Ny 0/y 0 k(x) ~ T0(Y) is the homomorphism induced by the tangent map d p 1.

18 19 The tangent map dp2: T(y 0) ~ T(X) induces a map d p2 : H0(y 0; Ny 0/y ) ~ H0(X; NX/U). We define the map p: T0(Y ) ~ H0(X; Nx/u) by This described the isomorphism of (c). We have the exact sheaf sequence on X: As NX/U~k (OX)n-1, and NU~k/U ~ OX fflx, Ext1X(OX, (OX)n-1) 0, the above séquence splits, and and since Thus, by (c), dim( Y ) n. Next, let u be a non-zero vector in the Zariski tangent space of Spec(O) at the closed point, and let Su be a global section of NX/U such that for each x in X. Let v ~ T0(Y ) be such that Let g: Y - Spec(O) be the morphism induced by the inclusion of Y into Hilb(V/0). We note that g is given by the map of C9 into a Y defined by Thus, we see that and hence the map g is smooth at h(x). Furthermore, we claim that OY is etale over in a neighborhood of ék. As p2 : y 0 - X is an isomorphism, it is enough to show that is an isomorphism for each x in &0. Let v be a non-zero element of Ny 0/y 0 k(x). As Ny 0/y is a free sheaf, there is a unique global section Sv of Ny 0/y such that Sv(x) v. Clearly we have

19 20 since d p1(v) ~ 0. As Nlu is the trivial sheaf (OX)n, this implies that Thus dp2(x) is an injection, hence an isomorphism as desired. Thus there is an open neighborhood Y of h(x) in Y such that Y is smooth over Spec«9), q ~ p1-1(y) is smooth over Y and újj ~ p-11(y) is etale over V. As X is contained in U, we may take Y so that p2(y ~p-11(y)) is contained in U. Let OY q ~ p-11(y). Since Y is open in Y, (i) is clear, as is (ii) and (iii), noting that dim(y) dim(y )n. The previous paragraph proves (iv). As for (v), the fiber qo k(0) is isomorphic to the rational curve X. Since the genus of a smooth complete curve is a deformation invariant all smooth deformations of Y ~ k(0) are also rational, proving (v). Our final assertion follows from (iv), (v), and the base change theorems for smooth, proper, and etale morphisms. Q.E.D. We also require the following basic result on extensions of invertible sheaves. As the result is well known, we merely sketch the proof. LEMMA 3.3: Let f : V ~ M be a smooth, projective morphism of integral schemes with geometrically irreducible fibers, 0 a point of M, and Lo an invertible sheaf on f-1(o) Vo. Suppose that h2(v0, OV0) 0. Then there is an etale neighborhood r: M ~ M of 0, an invertible sheaf L on v V MM, and a point 0 of r-1 (O) such that L 0 a VÓ is isomorphic PROOF: Let M denote the formal completion of M at mo and let denote the formal scheme V M. By proposition 7.1 of [5], there is an invertible sheaf L on V with L ~ OV0 isomorphic to Lo. Let denote the completion of the local ring of O in M at its maximal ideal, M the scheme Spec(). By Grothendieck s existence theorem [EGA III, 5.4.5], L extends to an invertible sheaf L on V X m M. Finally, Artin s algebraization theorem [2] applied to the functor F, T an M-scheme, yields the desired sheaf L and etale neighborhood r : M - M. Q.E.D. THEOREM 3.4: Let uk(n) denote the class of smooth projective strongly uni-ruled varieties of dimension n, defined over a field containing k. If char(k) 0, or if char(k) > 5 and n 3, then au k (n) is stable under small deformations. PROOF : By Proposition 2.6, we need only verify (ii) in Lemma 2.4. Let C9 be an equi-characteristic DVR with quotient field K and algebraically

20 closed residue field Ko, and let p : V ~ Spec(O) be a smooth projective morphism with geometrically irreducible fibers of dimension n. Changing notation, we may assume K. k. Suppose V 0 k is strongly uni-ruled. Then there is a variety W, birational to V 0 k, a variety Y and a family of curves qc Y X W such that (a) p 1: 13(- Y is smooth and proper; (b) P2: y ~ W is etale; (c) each fiber of pl : Y ~ Y is a rational curve. Let v : W - V 0 k be a projective birational morphism such that W is smooth, and the induced map v : W ~ W is a morphism. Shrinking Y if necessary, we may replace W with W ; changing notation we may assume W W. Let ( u : V ~ V; U ) be a good resolution for the singularities of the map v-1 for the family V. Let U ~ k ~ W denote the induced morphism, 03C8 v - 1 o ( u 0 k ). Let P W - 03C8(U ~ k) and let F be the closure of the fundamental locus of 03C8-1. Since ( u : V ~ V; U ) is a good resolution, we have codimw(p ~ F) 2. Let O be a point of Y such that 21 and let X p2(p-11(o)). Since y is etale over W, the formal neighborhood of p-11(o) in y is isomorphic to the formal neighborhood of X in W; thus Furthermore, since X ~ (P ~ F) ~, X is contained in 41 (U (D k) and 03C8-1 is an isomorphism in a neighborhood of X. Letting X 03C8-1(X), we have and X is a smooth complete rational curve. Applying Proposition 3.2, we see that V 0 K and hence V 0 K, is strongly uni-ruled, which completes the verification of (ii) and the proof of the theorem. Q.E.D. We now turn to stability results for quasi-ruled and ruled varieties. The reader will note that we require additional hypotheses in Theorems 3.8, 3.9, and 3.10 to yield stability. These hypotheses are actually quite necessary. Regarding Theorem 3.8, we give in [9] an example of a family p : V - Spec(O), with V 0 k quasi-ruled over a ruled threefold, such that V ~ K is not quasi-ruled.

21 22 We also give an example of a family q : W - Spec(O), with W 0 k ruled over, a base Y via a morphism, but with h2(y, OY) ~ 0, such that W 0 K is not ruled, which illuminates the final hypothesis of theorem The variety V 0 K above, being the deformation of the quasi-ruled (hence strongly uni-ruled) V ~ k is, in virtue of the above theorem, a strongly uni-ruled variety. This gives an example of a variety which is strongly uni-ruled, but not quasi-ruled, as mentioned in Section 2. We first prove some basic results about extending rational maps to a family of varieties. DEFINITION 3.5: Let p: U ~ Spec(C) be a smooth morphism with geometrically irreducible fibers. Suppose there is a variety Yo and a dominant rational map f : U ~ k - Yo. An extension of f to the family U is a pair ( g: Y - Spec(O); F) where g: Y - Spec(C) is a smooth morphism with geometrically irreducible fibers, and F: U ~ Y is a dominant rational map over C9, defined along U 0 k, such that (i) Yo is birational to Y 0 k, by some 03BE: Y0 ~ Y 0 k; (ii) f. The following lemma gives a criterion for a subvariety y of U X Spec(O)Y to be the graph of the extension of a rational map. LEMMA 3.6: Let p : U ~ Spec(C) be a smooth quasi-projective morphism with geometrically irreducible fibers, let Yo be a variety and let f: U ~ k - Yo be a dominant rational map. Suppose there is a smooth morphism g: Y - Spec(C), with geometrically irreducible fibers, a subvariety y of U X a Y, a birational map 03BE: Y0 ~ Y 0 k, and a point xo of U 0 k such that (i ) y ~ K and y ~ k are irreducible and reduced; (ii) OYO k is the graph of 03B6 f: U ~ k ~ Y ~ k; (iii) 03BE 03BF f is a morphism at Xo. ( iv ) Let xt be a point of U and xt ~ xo a specialization. Let Yt be a point of p2((xt Y) ~ y). If we extend Xt - xo to a specialization yt ~ y, then y 03B6 03BF f(x0). Then y is the graph of a dominant rational map F: U - Y over ffl, and ( g: Y - Spec(O) ; F) is an extension of f to the family U. PROOF: Since p2 : &0 k ~ Y 0 k is dominant, and y and Y are irreducible, it follows that p2: OYO K - Y ~ K is also dominant. To complete the proof, we need only show that there is an open subset W of CljJ, such that W is isomorphic to p1(w) via p1. Since y is integral and dominates Spec(O), y is flat over C9. Furthermore, since t - f is morphism at xo, the graph OYO k of e - f is smooth at (x0, 03BE f(xo)). Thus y is smooth over a in a neighborhood of (x0, 03BE f(x0)), o hence there is a neighborhood W of (x0, 03BE f(x0)) on 03( such that (a) g o p2 : W - Spec(O) is a smooth morphism; (b) p 1: W ~ U is quasi-finite and dominant.

22 23 Our assumption (iv), together with the valuative criterion for properness, shows that the map pl : W - U is proper over a neighborhood of xo in U. Shrinking W if necessary, we may assume that W is proper over its image p1(w). Thus, since p1: W - p 1(W) is both quasi-finite and proper, is a finite morphism. In particular, if x is a point of Pl (W), specializing to xo, then where "dim" refers to the vector space dimension. Thus p1: W - p 1(W) is an isomorphism, as desired Q.E.D. Most of the work in verifying the conditions of Lemma 3.6 for the situation at hand has already been done, as is shown below. We recall that the Hilbert point of a subvariety X of a projective variety V is denoted h(x). LEMMA 3.7 : Let p : V ~ Spec(O) be a smooth projective fiber space of fiber dimension n. Suppose char(k) 0, or that char(k) > 5 and n 3. Suppose that V 0 k is quasi-ruled over a variety Yo via ~: V 0 k - Yo. Then there is a local extension 0 of C9, with quotient field K and residue field k, a good resolution ( u* : V* ~ V ; U*) of the singularities of cp 0 pl : V 0 k - Yo for the family V, a smooth quasi-projective fiber variety g: Y - Spec(O ), and a subvariety y of U* X Spec(O ) Y such that ( i ) y is smooth over d ; OYO K and OYO k are geometrically irreducible ; ( ii ) there is a birational map 03BE: Yo - Y 0 k such that y ~ k is the proper transform under id x e of the graph of the morphism 0*: U* 0 k - Yo induced by ~ 03BF P2; (iii) y is smooth and proper over y, and each fiber of p2 : y ~ Y is a rational curve; (iv) Y is a locally closed subset of Hilb(V* O ) and y Y Hilb H(V*/O ). Furthermore, if cp is a morphism, we may take U* V.

23 24 PROOF: Let (UI: VI - V; U1) be a good resolution of the singularities of : V ~ k ~ Yo. Let U1 o k be the closure of Ul 0 k in VI and let 0,: U1 ~ k ~ Yo be the induced morphism. Since ( ul : V1 ~ V; U1) is a good resolution, we have (a) Ul ~ k is smooth; (b) codim Y0 [~1(U1 ~ k - U1 ~ k)] 1. Thus there is a smooth point yo of Yo such that ~1-1(y0) is a smooth complete rational curve contained in U, 0 k, with trivial normal bundle. Denote ~-11(y0) by X. We apply Proposition 3.2, to give a maximal irreducible algebraic family, Yi, of deformations of X in Ul. Let gl: YI ~ Spec«9) and y1 ~ Y, X Spec(O)U1 be as given by that proposition. Let K be a finite extension of K such that Y, (D K is a union of geometrically irreducible components defined over K. Let be a local extension of O with quotient field K. Take the various pull-backs Both U1 and V are smooth over (9. Let cp;: U 1 ~ k ~ Yo denote the rational map induced by ~1. We note that ~ 1 restricted to U 1 ~ k is a morphism. Just as in Theorem 1.7, we resolve the singularities of U 1 ~ k and ~ 1 to yield a good resolution ( u* : V* - V ; U*) of the singularities of ç O p2 : vl o k Yo. and let X* Let ~* : U* 0 k - Yo be the morphism induced by ç O p2, be the curve ~*-1(y0). By construction, U* 0 k is isomorphic to U, 0 k, and hence X* is a smooth rational curve, with trivial normal bundle in U* 0 k. We identify Y 1 with a locally closed subset of Hilb(V*/O ) in the obvious fashion, so that y 1 fvi ~0O is identified with the restriction to Y 1 of the universal family H(V*/O ). One of the irreducible components of Y,, say Y contains h ( X*). Let g: Y - Spec( C9 ) be a maximal algebraic family of deformations of X* in U* as given by Proposition 3.2. Counting dimensions, we find that Y contains an open subset of Y, and vice versa. As Y 0 K is geometrically irreducible so is Y ~ K. Shrinking Y if necessary we may assume that Y ~ k is irreducible. Let y Y Hilb(V*/O )H(V*/O ). OY satisfies (iii) by Proposition 3.2; as Y is smooth over a with irreducible fibers, so is CW, which proves (i). We

24 25 note that Y 0 k is a maximal algebraic family of deformations of X* in U* ~ k. Thus the rational map factors through Y 0 k, and is easily seen to be birational. Clearly id X e: (U* ~ k ) Y0 ~ (U* 0 k ) X ( Y 0 k ) transforms the graph of ~* to y ~ k. This verifies (ii) and completes the proof. Q.E.D. THEOREM 3.8: Let p : i - Spec(O) be a smooth projective fiber variety, of fiber dimension n. Suppose char(k) 0, or that char(k) > 5 and n 3. Suppose that V 0 k is quasi-ruled via 0: V 0 k - Yo. Suppose further that Yo is not uni-ruled. Then V 0 K is a quasi-ruled variety. PROOF: LetC9,p : V ~ Spec(O ), (u* : V* ~ V ; U*),g: Y0 ~ Y ~ k, g: Y - Spec«9 ), and fvc U* O, Y be as given by Lemma 3.7. We need only show that qo K c (U* 0 K ) X (Y ~ K ) is the graph of a rational map CPK : U* 0 K ~ Y 0 K. By Lemma 3.6 and 3.7, we need only verify (iv) of Lemma 3.6. Since Y ~ k is not uni-ruled, there is a point y. of Y 0 k that is not contained in any rational curve lying in Y ~ k. We may choose yo so that the rational map 03BE 03BF ~*: U* ~ k ~ Y ~ k is a morphism in a neighborhood of -1(y0). Let X denote the smooth rational curve -1(y0) and let xo be a point of X. Let xr - xo be a specialization, let yt be a point of p2(y ~ (Xt Y)), and let Yt ~ y be a specialization extending Xt - xo. We must show ~(x0) yo. Let Xt be the smooth rational curve p1(y ~ ( U* X yt )). Clearly x is in Xt, and h(xt) yt. As yt is in Hilb(V*/O ), which is a union of components projective over C9, y is also in Hilb(V* /C9 ). Thus the specialization yt ~ y defines a specialization of subschemes of V*, Xt ~ X with As x, is a point of Xt, xo is a point of X; furthermore, by Lemma 5 of [13] each irreducible component of X is a rational curve. Let Xo be a component of X containing xo. Then either Xo X, or (X0) is a rational curve on Y 0 k containing yo. Since are no there such curves on Y 0 k, we have Xo X. Also, X, Xt, and X have the same Hilbert polynomials, which forces X X. Thus y h(x) h(x) y0, and (iv) is verified. This completes the proof of the theorem. Q.E.D. THEOREM 3.9: Let p : V ~ Spec(O) be a smooth projective fiber variety. Suppose that V 0 k is quasi-ruled over a projective variety Yo ç; pm via a morphism cp: V ~ k - Yo. Then V ~ K is quasi-ruled.

25 26 PROOF: Let (f), p : V ~ Spec(O ), g: Y - Spec(O ), 03BE: Y0 ~ Y ~ k, and y ~ V X O Y be a given by Lemma 3.7 for the morphism cp. As above, we need only verify (iv) in Lemma 3.6. Let yo be a point of Y such that ~ 03B6 03BF ~: V ~ k ~ Y ~ k is a morphism in a neighborhood of ~ -1(y0). Let xo be a point of X ~ -1(y0), let x, - xo be a specialization, let yt be a point of p2(y ~ (xt X Y)), and let yt ~ y be a specialization extending xt ~ x0. Let Y denote the closure of Y in Hilb(V /O ). As yt is in Y, is in Y 0 k, which is connected by Zariski s connectedness theorem. Let Xt be the subscheme of V with h(xt) yt, let X be the subscheme with h(x) y and let Xt ~ X be the specialization defined by yt ~ y. Xt ~ X defines a specialization of positive cycles Xt ~ X. Since Y ~ k is connected, we have Thus on (FD As supplxi contains xo, and is connected, this forces Since X and X have the same Hilbert polynomial, we have and which completes the proof. Q.E.D. We now consider the case of ruled varieties THEOREM 3.10: Let p: V ~ Spec(O) be a smooth projective fiber variety of fiber dimension n. Suppose that V ~ k is ruled over a variety Yo via ~: V 0 k ~ Yo. Suppose that either (a) ~ is a morphism and Yo is projective, or or (b) Yo is not uni-ruled and char ( k ) 0, ( c) Yo is not uni-ruled and char(k) Finally suppose that h2(v 0 k, OV~k) > 5 and n Then V 0 K is ruled. PROOF : Let (9, p : V - Spec(O ), (u*: V* ~ V, U*), g: Y - Spec(O ), Yo ~ Y 0 k, and OYC U* xm,ybe as given by Lemma 3.7 for the map cp.

26 27 Let 0*: U* o k - Yo be the map induced by 0. Just as in Theorems 3.8 and 3.9, we have that ( g: Y ~ Spec(O ), F ) is an extension of 0*: U* 0 k ~ Y0 to the family U*, where F: U* - Y is the map with graph OY. Let a : Yo ~ U* ~ k be a rational section to i7: U* ~ k ~ Yo. Let D be the divisor 1 03C3(Y0) on U* 0 k, and let D be the divisor (u*)*(d) on V ~ k. Since h2(v 0 k, OV ~k) 0, Lemma 3.3 implies there is a local extension U" of 0 and an invertible sheaf L on V ~O O" such that L ~ k OV ~k(d ). Changing notation, we may assume (9 (9". Let f be a rational section of L over h and let Z be the divisor of f. Choosing f appropriately, we may assume that supp(z) does not contain V 0 k. Then Z 0 k is linearly equivalent to D on V 0 k. Let Z* denote the divisor (u*)-1(z) on U*. Let tffç; U* be the exceptional divisor of u*: U* ~ V. Write tff as a sum of irreducible divisors and write supp(03b5~) k) as a union of irreducible components Then for suitable integers for suitable integers n l, the last line following from Definition 1.2 (iv). Let yt be a generic point of Y 0 K over K. Let Xt be the fiber

27 28 Let yo be a generic point of Y ~ k over k, and let Xo be the fiber Xo and Xt are smooth complete rational curves on U* ~ k and U* 0 K respectively, and Xt is algebraically equivalent to Xo on U*. Thus (The intersection numbers are preserved since Xo and Xt members of a family of complete curves on U*.) are both By Lemma 2.2, F 0 K: U* 0 K ~ Y 0 K is a ruling, which completes the proof. Q.E.D. We summarize our results in the following theorem. THEOREM 3.11: Let p : V ~ M be a smooth projective fiber variety of fiber dimension n over a variety M. Let 0 be a point of M. Suppose V 0 k is quasi-ruled over a variety Yo via ~: V 0 k ~ Yo. Suppose that either (a) ~ is a morphism and Yo is projective, or or (b) Yo is not uni-ruled and char ( k ) 0, ( c) Yo is not uni-ruled and char(k) > 5 and n 3. Then there is an open neighborhood U of 0 in M such that V ~ k(u) is quasi-ruled for each u in U. If in addition ~ is a ruling and h2(v ~ k, OV~k) 0, then Vo k(u) is ruled for each u in M. PROOF : Our first conclusion follows from Lemma 2.5, Theorems 3.8 and 3.9 and a simple noetherian induction. The second conclusion follows from Lemma 2.5, Theorem 3.8, and the following result of Matsusaka (Theorem 1.1 [11]): Let V be a smooth ruled variety in a projective space V a variety in a projective space, and a a DVR such that V is a specialization of V over (9. Then V is also a ruled variety. Q.E.D.

28 29 References [1] M. ARTIN: Algebraization of formal moduli I. Global Analysis (paper in honor of K. Kodaira) pp , Univ. Tokyo Press (1969). [2] S. ABHYANKAR: Resolution of Singularities of Embdedded Algebraic Surfaces. Academic Press (1966). [3] W.L. CHOW: On equivalence classes of cycles in an algebraic variety. Ann. Math 64 (1956) [4] A. FUJIKI: Deformations of uni-ruled manifolds. Publ. RIMS 17 (1981) [5] A. GROTHENDIECK: EGA III, I.H.E.S. publ. No. 17. [6] A. GROTHENDIECK: SGA I, LNM 224, Springer-Verlag (1971). [7] H. HIRONAKA: Resolution of singularities of an algebraic variety over a field of characteristic zero. Ann. Math. 79 (1964) [8] K. KODAIRA and D.C. SPENCER: On deformations of complex analytic structures I. Ann. Math. 67 (1958) [9] M. LEVINE: Some examples from the deformation theory of ruled varieties. Am. J. Math. 103 (1981) [10] M. LEVINE: Deformations of uni-ruled varieties. Duke Math. J. 48 (1981) [11] T. MATSUSAKA: Algebraic deformations of polarized varieties. Nagoya Math. J. 31 (1968) [12] J. ROBERTS: Chow s moving lemma. App. 2 to Motives, S.L. Kleiman, Proc. 5th Nordic Summer School in Math. (1970) F. Oort (ed.). [13] P. SAMUEL: Rational equivalene of arbitrary cycles. Amer. J. Math. 78 (1956) (Oblatum 13-V-1980 & 19-VIII-1980) Department of Mathematics El University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, PA USA